The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[Dave1001]

Slingblade, great editorial. It captures my perspective on the topic, including the topic of the OP perfectly.

 

[aerosolben]

I don't see why that's a problem. Take consensual sex between two 30-year-olds: it's perfectly legal, of course, and there is nothing wrong about it. But it might well not be legal to post photographs of the act in public places. It's the publicity of the act, not the act itself, act itself, which is the crime.

Distribution is quite distinct from possession, and is often subject to harsher penalties, but both are illegal under US. See relevant section of US Code on material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.

Therefore, if you take photographs, and never expose them publicly, you could still be prosecuted for both production and possession even the absence of intent to distribute.

 

[slingblade]

Therefore, if you take photographs, and never expose them publicly, you could still be prosecuted for both production and possession even the absence of intent to distribute.

Photos of consenting adults?

 

[Roadtoad]

I also appreciate those who are sympathetic, and encouraging me to protect myself. Thank you. I'm grateful for your concern.

But everytime anyone wonders if sex is harmful for children, I'll be there to tell them it most certainly is. I don't really care if my personal story is a fallacy, an anecdote, or whatever. I was silent for 40 years. I wonder how many children got hurt because I said nothing?

When I was a kid, I told my parents about what happened to me at scout camp. My mother's response was, "How dare you say such a thing about a friend of your father's! Do you realize what this could do to his career?"

I have an IQ of 183. At one point, I was told I was capable of earning multiple PhD's in a number of fields. And yet, I'm a college dropout. I've never made more than $37,000 a year in my life. My marriage is to a woman who also endured sexual abuse, and who still show scars from it in spite of the fact that it happened back in the early '60s.

I still wonder what happened to the other boys abused by the man who abused me. I wonder what might have happened had my parents put my welfare ahead of my dad's military career? Perhaps instead of retiring as a Master Sergeant, he might have left as a Command Sergeant Major. I can't imagine that the military would have viewed my father standing up for his kids as a negative.

Then again, if they did, perhaps he would have been better off it he had left the military.

 

[aerosolben]

Photos of consenting adults?

No. I was referring to the "you and the 16-year-old" scenario, against which Skeptic was drawing an analogy. I can see how the context isn't clear, though.

The point was: Even if you don't publicize them, the act of taking such photographs (production) and keeping them to yourself (possession) is prima facie illegal, even though the act they depict is legal. The analogy doesn't hold.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And I care that you don't know a strawman fallacy from a hole in the ground...why, exactly?

To put it mildly, the versions of the arguments put forward in your fictional dialogue as representative of ths skeptical side were not the best put or strongest versions of them available. That makes them straw men, convenient targets for demolition.

I did? Really? It's funny that I don't see your name anywhere in my post, yet you eagerly run forward to claim the ideas as yours, and then blame me for ascribing them to you.

Interesting.

To paraphrase Taxi Driver, I don't see anybody else around here so you must be talking to me. Who in this thread was that aimed at, if it wasn't primarily aimed at me?

Kevin.

I happen to have written this editorial this semester:

Do you think it might have been more constructive to post that in the first place than to post what you did?

Depicting me as a child with my fingers in my ears was quite insulting of you, Kevin. I have decided I must put you on my ignore list. I know your heart is broken by that, but I am sure you will recover.

It's a free world, and you can put me on Ignore if you like.

 

[Roadtoad]

Just throwing this out for consideration: Anyone remember Mary Kay Letourneau?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just throwing this out for consideration: Anyone remember Mary Kay Letourneau?

I was not familiar with this case before.

It's interesting that they risked jail to be together repeatedly, and even after a seven year separation by prison they married and (as far as the article discloses) are still together now as adults.

You could spin this as true love, or evidence that early sex leads children to make very bad decisions. Evidence for the first spin is that they are still together. Evidence for the second is that fathering two children at that age is not evidence of good forward planning skills, nor any consideration for the likely lives of their children.

A couple of other things that struck me. Firstly the majority of adults having sex with children of that age are sexual predators, but no evidence seems to have emerged that Mary Kay Letourneau had sexual relations with any of her other students. Secondly the fact they planned to flee the country together indicates a significant mutual commitment.

It's a strange and sad story. I hope it has ended happily.

 

[The Atheist]

When I was a kid, I told my parents about what happened to me at scout camp. My mother's response was, "How dare you say such a thing about a friend of your father's! Do you realize what this could do to his career?"

Mate, between you and Sling, this is the saddest s##t I've read in a long, long time.

The pair of you utterly blow me away with your ability to be honest, caring humans after the faces of inhumanity you saw at such early ages.

I tell ya, it's stuff like this which does make me wish there was a god - just so's I could sit next to him as he tossed these filth into a boiling pit. How you manage to remain sane and not filled chock-full of bitterness astounds me.

I wish I could tell you both just how much I admire you, but the words don't exist.

 

[quixotecoyote]

In all deference to people who've had it worse than myself, abuse need not be the life-dominating terror that exists in the cultural mind. I underwent a decent amount of physical abuse as a child, but it doesn't bother me now unless I get involved in a discussion and something hits an old hot button.

Now I realize that's not the same as sexual abuse, but I'm also not sure it matters. What does matter is that we decide matters of policy based on available evidence rather than emotional rhetoric.

To use a similar example, although I was physically abused, I do not think that the emotional response to that is a good basis for a decision on the corporal punishment debate. Certainly I have a strong personal revulsion towards it, as what passed for punishment in my case was way over the line of what was acceptable. But I recognize that there is evidence that when applied appropriately, it does not appear to have long term negative effects. I'm still not in favor of it, but I'm not sure enough about it to consider banning it.

That's pretty much where this thread has left me in regards to child pornography. I can respect the pain of those who suffered sexual abuse as a child, but I do not see any evidence provided that child pornography causes harm to children. Until such evidence is provided, I think the rational position would be support for legalization.

 

[dann]

I can respect the pain of those who suffered sexual abuse as a child, but I do not see any evidence provided that child pornography causes harm to children.

Guns don't kill people, gunowners do.
Kiddie porn does not harm children, kiddie-porn owners do.

How would you feel about reading material which portrayed 'punishment way over the line of what is acceptable' for people who get off on that kind of literature? Would it encourage a particular attitude to children or not? Would it have satisfied your parents' (?) need (?) to see you suffer, so they would not have abused you (or not abused you as much as they actually did)?

 

[Dave1001]

That's pretty much where this thread has left me in regards to child pornography. I can respect the pain of those who suffered sexual abuse as a child, but I do not see any evidence provided that child pornography causes harm to children. Until such evidence is provided, I think the rational position would be support for legalization.

Is there any distinction here between types of pornography? Using actual children vs. not using actual children (pseudo child pornography)? Or do you support the legalization of both types of pornography?

 

[Gurdur]

Now you're the one excercising bad form Gurdur, in my opinion. Kevin basically just did what was done to him (except more mildly), but still rightfully apologized when it was pointed out that that type thing, even when done tit-for-tat, doesn't add positively to the discussion. In contrast, Gurdur, I think you're using Kevin's contriteness on this particular point to try to smear his entire contribution to this thread, and I think it's an unfair and unhelpful move on your part.

Wrong, Dave, very wrong.
As I have pointed out to Kevin quite a few times throughout this thread, he has routinely used denigratory language to abuse anyone disagreeing with him, describing their non-agreement as "stupid" and the like. I could go back and do quotes, but it's all there on record. At the same time Kevin has whined about not being treated fairly or properly. And then he pulled that stunt on Slingblade.

What I want to make very clear is:
there is no need to legalise kiddie porn or pedophilia just to indulge pedophiles. The want to have sex with children is an agenda driven by adults, not by children; and it amounts to only wanting to use children.

I personally don't see Kevin as being very contrite at all. You, Dave, and Kevin both need to get one pont very straight; you both are leaping straight into an area closely bound up with child abuse of the worser kinds, and there have been a lot of children abused, and yet Kevin chooses to crusade while putting down anyone disagreeing with him?

You both really need to get a grip; if you are dealing with an area that has a whole lot of damage down to people, then putting down those people and ignoring them is what is "unfair" (massive understatement), not any reaction to it.

 

[steverino]

The want to have sex with children is an agenda driven by adults, not by children; and it amounts to only wanting to use children.

I agree. Otherwise we need to change the phrase "between two consenting adults" to "between one consenting adult and one consenting 7 year-old" which really means "between one consenting adult and whom ever he finds to exploit." And is it really "sex" or is it, as I believe, "power over a kid?"

 

[dann]

"power over a kid?"

Did you see this post?

 

[varwoche]

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html and
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/fleming/fleming.html#refbody12

It is stunningly misleading to cite these articles as supporting your position. In fact, if I didn't know better I'd have thought they were cited in diametric opposition.

Link #1 -- AIFS: First off, this is not an original study. It's an article that cites numerous other studies. But since you cited it...

child sexual abuse has come to be widely regarded as a cause of mental health problems in adult life
...
symptoms engendered in the process of the abuse and have reverberated down the years to produce a post-abuse syndrome in adult life
...
child sexual abuse produced a range of psychological effects at the time and, secondarily, behavioral changes
...
Child molesters are reported to selectively target pretty and trusting children
...
positive correlations between a history of child sexual abuse and mental health problems in adult life
...
The well documented difficulties that sexually abused children experience in the school situation with academic performance and behaviour
...
those with histories of child sexual abuse tended to have lower status economic roles ... significant decline in socioeconomic status
...
A history of child sexual abuse has been found to be associated with problems with sexual adjustment in adult life
...
association between a history of child sexual abuse and an earlier age of entering the first cohabitation and an earlier age at first pregnancy
...
child sexual abuse are at greater risk during adolescence of sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancy
...
These findings support the hypothesis that the exposure of children to the sexual advances and acts of adults places the victim at risk of later sexual problems
...
a blow to their construction of the world as a safe enough environment and their developing sense of others as trustworthy.
...
Relationship problems were also reflected in the evaluations of the quality of their communication with their partners.
...
more likely to rate their partners as low on care and concern, and high on intrusive control
...
child sexual abuse in lowering self esteem in adults
...
established body of knowledge clearly linking a history of child sexual abuse with higher rates in adult life of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders

And yes, I did notice the blurbs that could be cherry-picked out of context, if one were inclined to abject sophistry.

Link #2 similarly contradicts your position. (I'll demonstrate later, time allowing.)

To hold up these articles as evidence supporting your position is nothing short of surreal.

 

[quixotecoyote]

How would you feel about reading material which portrayed 'punishment way over the line of what is acceptable' for people who get off on that kind of literature? Would it encourage a particular attitude to children or not? Would it have satisfied your parents' (?) need (?) to see you suffer, so they would not have abused you (or not abused you as much as they actually did)?

Poor form, but I will answer anyway. I would feel no different, because I see no evidence of a causal link from the pornography to the child abuse. That is where the burden of evidence lies, on the person claiming harm to show harm.

I'm much more amenable to the banning of actual adult-child sex, although I am a bit suprised no one has been able to counter Kevin's points with evidence rather than viritol. People have pointed out studies showing that sexual abuse hurts children, but since that isn't what he's talking about and the studies don't differentiate, it's not really applicable.

I'm sure studies that refute his position exist (okay so it's a poor skeptical position to take, sue me), but no one has ben able to come up with them. I'm not sure any evidence of a causal link from pornography to harm exists, so I'm waiting on the claimants to support their case.

Is there any distinction here between types of pornography? Using actual children vs. not using actual children (pseudo child pornography)? Or do you support the legalization of both types of pornography?

Of course, I should have been more specific. I think the kinds not using actual children are far more defensible.

 

[Dave1001]

there is no need to legalise kiddie porn or pedophilia just to indulge pedophiles. The want to have sex with children is an agenda driven by adults, not by children; and it amounts to only wanting to use children.

I agree. Otherwise we need to change the phrase "between two consenting adults" to "between one consenting adult and one consenting 7 year-old" which really means "between one consenting adult and whom ever he finds to exploit." And is it really "sex" or is it, as I believe, "power over a kid?"

I think it's a major scope shift to be against pseudo child pornography that doesn't use actual children because one is against real life adult-child sexual contact.

 

[dann]

People have pointed out studies showing that sexual abuse hurts children, but since that isn't what he's talking about and the studies don't differentiate, it's not really applicable.

I'm sure studies that refute his position exist (okay so it's a poor skeptical position to take, sue me), but no one has ben able to come up with them.

I'm not so sure that they do exist which is why we have to rely on arguments without documentation. And that is also the reason why I asked the questions that you consider poor form.
You cannot do a study where you have two groups of paedophiles and hand out kiddie porn to one group and a porn placebo to the other, and then wait a couple of years to see which group has the largest number of actual offenders.
But I don't think that kiddie porn would do this guy much good:
"I'm 21 years old, and a virgin, I've never even kissed a girl. I have no job, and can't keep one. I'm frustrated that I'm a virgin, and it seems very unlikely that I'll ever get the kind of woman I want, and I'm desperate, because I need love. I never have molested a little girl, never! I want to though, I'm truly desperate. I want to hold a little girl in my arms, and tell her I love her, and that I'll keep her safe, and protect her, that appeals to me greatly."
It might relieve some of his frustration, but at the same time it would reinforce his leanings towards sex with children. (An orgasm is probably a very powerful form of reinforcement.)
Get the guy a job, give him lessons in dating (preferably in co-ed classes), help him find love, help him stop obsessing about little girls.
Do you actually think that kiddie porn - even "the kinds not using actual children" - is the answer to this guy's problems? Or to those of his potential victims?
I don't, but I cannot offer you any evidence or studies to prove my point.

I'm not sure any evidence of a causal link from pornography to harm exists, so I'm waiting on the claimants to support their case.

 

[steverino]

I think it's a major scope shift to be against pseudo child pornography that doesn't use actual children because one is against real life adult-child sexual contact.

Dude, the thread's scope has shifted. I am addressing recent posts.